ArticleJAMA internal medicine2017
Patient Advocacy Organizations, Industry Funding, and Conflicts of Interest.
Article in JAMA internal medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
49 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Financial relationships between patient and consumer representatives and the health industry: A systematic review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Pooled it
- Industry funding of patient and health consumer organisations: systematic review with meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2020Pooled it
- Pharmaceutical Industry Payments to Patient Groups in Australia: A Longitudinal Analysis of a Decade of Disclosures.The Medical journal of Australia · 2026Observational
- Factors influencing FDA drug approval decisions beyond clinical trial evidence: a scoping review.Health affairs scholar · 2026Review
- Patient organizations involvement in healthcare: a rapid review and conceptual framework.Globalization and health · 2026Review
- Stigma, Scarcity and the Price of Legitimacy: Chronic Pain Advocacy and the Politics of Pharmaceutical Partnerships in Canada.Sociology of health & illness · 2026Article
- Between willingness and practice: a nationwide survey of 1,334 German patient organization members on user involvement in digital service development.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Patient Organizations' Digital Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Ethical challenges in contemporary psychiatry: an overview and an appraisal of possible strategies and research needs.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2024Article
- Improving Food and Drug Administration-Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Coordination for Drugs Granted Accelerated Approval.The Milbank quarterly · 2023Article
- Article
- Development of an Evidence-Based Conceptual Model of the Health Care Sector Under Digital Transformation: Integrative Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Review
- Comparing pharmaceutical company payments in the four UK countries: a cross-sectional and social network analysis.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Experts' Views on FDA Regulatory Standards for Drug and High-Risk Medical Devices: Implications for Patient Care.Journal of general internal medicine · 2022Article
- Industry influence in healthcare harms patients: myth or maxim?Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2022Review
- The involvement of rare disease patient organisations in therapeutic innovation across rare paediatric neurological conditions: a narrative review.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2022Review
- Responding to the opioid crisis in North America and beyond: recommendations of the Stanford-Lancet Commission.Lancet (London, England) · 2022Review
- Psychiatrization of Resistance: The Co-option of Consumer, Survivor, and Ex-patient Movements in the Global South.Frontiers in sociology · 2022Article
- Mapping conflict of interests: scoping review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2021Article
- Pharmaceutical industry payments and assisted reproduction in Australia: a retrospective observational study.BMJ open · 2021Observational
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Patient advocacy organizations (PAOs) are influential health care stakeholders that provide direct counseling and education for patients, engage in policy advocacy, and shape research agendas. Many PAOs report having financial relationships with for-profit industry, yet little is known about the nature of these relationships. Objective: To describe the nature of industry funding and partnerships between PAOs and for-profit companies in the United States. Design, Setting, and Participants: A survey was conducted from September 1, 2013, to June 30, 2014, of a nationally representative random sample of 439 PAO leaders, representing 5.6% of 7865 PAOs identified in the United States. Survey questions addressed the nature of their activities, their financial relationships with industry, and the perceived effectiveness of their conflict of interest policies. Main Outcomes and Measures: Amount and sources of revenue as well as organizational experiences with and policies regarding financial conflict of interest. Results: Of the 439 surveys mailed to PAO leaders, 289 (65.8%) were returned with at least 80% of the questions answered. The PAOs varied widely in terms of size, funding, activities, and disease focus. The median total revenue among responding organizations was $299 140 (interquartile range, $70 000-$1 200 000). A total of 165 of 245 PAOs (67.3%) reported receiving industry funding, with 19 of 160 PAOs (11.9%) receiving more than half of their funding from industry. Among the subset of PAOs that received industry funding, the median amount was $50 000 (interquartile range, $15 000-$200 000); the median proportion of industry support derived from the pharmaceutical, device, and/or biotechnology sectors was 45% (interquartile range, 0%-100%). A total of 220 of 269 respondents (81.8%) indicated that conflicts of interest are very or moderately relevant to PAOs, and 94 of 171 (55.0%) believed that their organizations' conflict of interest policies were very good. A total of 22 of 285 PAO leaders (7.7%) perceived pressure to conform their positions to the interests of corporate donors. Conclusions and Relevance: Patient advocacy organizations engage in wide-ranging health activities. Although most PAOs receive modest funding from industry, a minority receive substantial industry support, raising added concerns about independence. Many respondents report a need to improve their conflict of interest policies to help maintain public trust.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28114624What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.